BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

130 results for “house property”+ Section 271Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai48Karnataka21Mumbai16Jaipur15Ahmedabad7Hyderabad5Delhi4Kolkata4Surat4Bangalore1Nagpur1Pune1Raipur1SC1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271A83Section 234E76Section 153A73Penalty66Section 143(3)56Section 26333Section 14730Section 271B30Section 44A28TDS

SHRI RADHEYSHYAM BISANI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Radheyshyam Bisani, I.T.O., B. 1102, Shyam Sangini Apartment, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Gd Goenka Canal Road, Vesu, Surat. Surat. Old Address: 204, Paras Market, Ring Road, Surat. Pan No. Aaspb 9157 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

house property and capital gain. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, accepted the return of income. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271B

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

21
Addition to Income20
Survey u/s 133A9
ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jaipur
22 Mar 2023
AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered loss, same was not declared in return of income. The case of the assessee

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7127/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7129/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7128/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7125/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7126/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI vs. GALAXY PREMISES P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7124/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

housing projects, cash loans/deposits, etc. As per the Revenue, the assessee violated the provisions of ITA Nos.7124 to 7129/Mum/2016 4 M/s Galaxy Premises Pvt. Ltd. section 269SS of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty under section 271D should not be levied. The assessee filed its submissions vide letter dated 13/07/2015, which

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

Section 271B of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.10.2020. 2 Shri Manphool Singh vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; “1. That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in passing the order which is bad in law and facts. Hence liable to be quashed

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

ITA 232/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 273ASection 80C

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, 5 Prakash Jiwandas Wanjari ITA no.232/Nag./2022 section 271H, section 271-1. section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009
Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section

SHYAM KUMAR SADASHIVAN PILLAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 27(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 897/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 275

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2549/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

271B of the Act by the assessee are dismissed. I.T.A. Nos. 2673 & 2674/Mds/2014 [A.Y. 2008-09 & 2010-11] (Revenue’s Appeals) 11. The only effective ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue is with regard to allowance of deduction under section 80IB

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2548/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

271B of the Act by the assessee are dismissed. I.T.A. Nos. 2673 & 2674/Mds/2014 [A.Y. 2008-09 & 2010-11] (Revenue’s Appeals) 11. The only effective ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue is with regard to allowance of deduction under section 80IB

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2551/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

271B of the Act by the assessee are dismissed. I.T.A. Nos. 2673 & 2674/Mds/2014 [A.Y. 2008-09 & 2010-11] (Revenue’s Appeals) 11. The only effective ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue is with regard to allowance of deduction under section 80IB

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

ITA 2553/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

271B of the Act by the assessee are dismissed. I.T.A. Nos. 2673 & 2674/Mds/2014 [A.Y. 2008-09 & 2010-11] (Revenue’s Appeals) 11. The only effective ground raised in both the appeals of the Revenue is with regard to allowance of deduction under section 80IB

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/11889/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

HOUSING COLONY, KADABETTU, UDUPI-586 101. 4. SRI ARNOLD D’SILVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. SRI LOUIS D’SILVA, RESIDING AT 12-1-84C, MOTHER CARE, K.M. MARG, SUPER BAZAR, UDUPI-576 101. 5. SRI K. SATHISH K. KAMATH (PROP:ARUNA CLINIC), AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SRI K. VAMAN KAMATH, RESIDING